Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have had a very fulsome debate. Starting with amendment 1038, I am appreciative of the cabinet secretary’s explanation of why it is—I think that this is the word that he used—defective. On the basis of that explanation, I am minded not to move the amendment at this stage, but I think that the committee and the general public are entitled to know a lot more about what the increase will mean in real terms for victims and perpetrators of crime. Hopefully, the Crown Office might pay heed to the various concerns that have been raised here today and make that information available to us, specifically the nature of the offences that fall under the application of fiscal fines and whether they have been broadened due to the Covid powers that have been in place for a couple of years.

On amendment 1040, it is worth putting on the record that although at points during the debate it sounded like we had some principled opposition to fiscal fines per se, that is not the case—they serve a useful purpose in the justice system. However, it is fundamentally wrong that there is no simple mechanism for or proactive way of telling people who have reported a crime the outcome of those proceedings.

All eight of my amendments in the group relate to the emergency release of prisoners in the event of another Covid outbreak. I will try to deal with them in a sensible order. Amendment 1050 is a stand-alone amendment that would create a requirement that any prisoner who might be subject to early release in future due to a Covid outbreak undergo a Covid test. It came as a surprise to me that that had not been the case, although it was explained that, understandably, the mechanisms were not in place at that time. In any future pandemic, they should be. It seems to defy any public health logic to send people from an institution into communities across Scotland without a test.

With regard to amendments 1049 and 1057, we know that, under emergency measures, 348 prisoners were released early at the start of the pandemic. That decision was made by the Scottish ministers. That figure included 21 prisoners who had been convicted of serious assault. There is a fundamental point of principle at play here. We are opposed to the general ability of ministers to intervene in sentencing. Those sentences were handed out by sheriffs or judges, and sentences should be a matter for the judiciary, not politicians. The early release of prisoners at the stroke of a ministerial pen is wrong in principle.

There is also the issue of reoffending. Their early release was presented as a matter of public health, but I would argue that that was a gamble on public safety. We discovered that 142 of those who were released early under the emergency powers reoffended within six months. The usual yardstick for measuring reoffending is 12 months, so the actual number of those who reoffended was almost certainly higher. The Scottish Government might say that that provision is about protecting people in prison, but these people are in prison for good reason—primarily as punishment, to protect the public and for rehabilitation. I would argue that the Scottish Government ought to fix the prison estate and ensure that the environment is safe and has the capacity to deal with any future outbreaks and therefore not give the possible impression that Covid is being used as a pretext to get prisoner numbers down by stealth.

Just a few weeks ago, the Scottish Government revealed that hundreds of prisoners had been given early or temporary release due to incorrect risk assessments caused by a computer problem. That included eight prisoners serving life sentences, so I suggest that public faith has already taken a bit of a knock. It is also worth stating that the emergency powers are not in the hands of criminal justice professionals—such as prison governors, who have the experience to make the decisions—but Government ministers. If it was governors rather than the Government, it might be a different matter.

The strongest opposition to the powers relates to the impact on victims. The committee took evidence from victims’ organisations, which were scathing about early release. Earlier, the cabinet secretary quoted Kate Wallace of Victim Support Scotland.

I will start with amendment 1050, on the requirement, or otherwise, for prisoners to undergo Covid tests. I heard what the cabinet secretary had to say. Given that the measure is supposed to be about preventing the spread of Covid, it is logical that prisoners could be Covid positive when they are released back into communities. I will therefore move amendment 1050.

I concede that the wording of amendments 1051, 1054 and 1055 as they are framed presents problems. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for explaining that to me. On that basis, I am inclined not to move those amendments at this stage.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his willingness to at least consider or discuss how amendments 1052 and 1053 might work in practice. I look forward to taking him up on his offer.

Finally, on amendments 1049 and 1057, which are the two main amendments in my name, for all the reasons that I raised in my initial remarks—which I do not think we have time to rehearse—I still believe that the powers envisaged in the bill are not necessary, and I urge members to vote against them.

Yes, and amendment 1057.

That is another side of the coin; it speaks to the same issue, which is that we do not know enough about how fiscal fines are used. For example, we do not know whether some people think that they can, in effect, get away with a crime by refusing a fiscal fine, or whether some people are, for the sake of convenience, accepting wrongdoing that they do not believe that they were ever guilty of.

The point is that, whether we are arguing for more or fewer dates, we have a bill that defines what Jamie Greene has described as arbitrary dates—the minister disagrees with that description—and it seems inevitable from the discussions that we have had that there will be challenges and that the number of days is likely to grow. Whether the use of fireworks on more days happens through a legal expansion of the dates or through the black market, we need to be mindful that it is a likely consequence.

I agree with Jamie Greene in respect of the dates. It seems that the only direction that the number of dates is going to go in is upwards when people from other cultures, religions or causes that use fireworks seek to have their dates included. I am not entirely sure what the mechanism for that will be, whether it will be straightforward, whether it will involve going to court or whether the Government will be sympathetic to applicants. An obvious example is 4 July. Americans living in Scotland celebrate 4 July with fireworks, as they do in their homeland. Under the bill as it stands, they would be prohibited from doing so. I dare say that, if I went through a calendar, I could find dates that are relevant to all sorts of other groups, some of which Jamie Greene has already identified.

I apologise if I have missed this. If a group was to seek to add to the permitted days of purchase and use, what is the mechanism for that? Is it going to court, or is there some kind of application process that the group could go through with the Government?

I am asking partly out of curiosity but also to get confirmation that there is a pre-existing definition.

Indeed.

Going back to the number of days, it might surprise people who are watching to hear that, right now, people can let off fireworks 365 days of the year. That is correct, is it not? The bill seeks to prohibit that but, in so doing, it potentially creates the problem of the exclusion of other groups. We have the additional phenomenon of people using fireworks to mark big occasions such as weddings and birthdays.

Going back to a point that was made earlier, I note that limiting sales will mean that there is a risk of stockpiling. If people realise that their date of intended use does not fall within the 57 days and there is no clear or sympathetic mechanism to have it included—or if that is a non-starter because the event is, for example, a wedding—we might find that people tend to stockpile. They could get a licence, buy fireworks and hold on to them for the date in question.

The issue requires clarification, so I agree with Jamie Greene’s amendments.